Supreme Court on Trial Adjournments After Evidence Begins: Doongar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

In Doongar Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2045-2046 of 2017, the Supreme Court on 28 November 2017 stressed that criminal courts should record witness evidence without avoidable breaks. The Court highlighted the risks of intimidation and witness hostility when examination and cross-examination are separated by lengthy adjournments.

Background: murder trial and prolonged witness examination

The case arose from the murder of Bhagwan Singh on 27 May 2005. Twenty persons were tried; nine were convicted by the trial court and their convictions were affirmed by the High Court. Other accused persons were acquitted or had died. The nine convicted appellants approached the Supreme Court by way of criminal appeals.

The Supreme Court noted that the examination-in-chief of a significant prosecution witness, PW-14 Prabhu Singh, was recorded on 13 April 2010, but on a request from defence counsel the matter was adjourned to 25 August 2010, a gap exceeding four months. Further partial evidence was recorded on 24 September 2010, with another adjournment to 11 October 2010. Four witnesses from the same family had turned hostile in statements recorded on 10 April 2010. These events illustrated the dangers of delay in serious criminal trials.

Legal issue: adjournments after commencement of evidence

The central procedural concern was whether repeated or extended adjournments after commencement of witness evidence were consistent with the mandate of Section 309 CrPC. The Court emphasized the importance of recording evidence continuously to protect witnesses and the integrity of the trial.

Section 309 CrPC: meaning and requirements

Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dealt with the power of criminal courts to postpone or adjourn proceedings. Its central rule required proceedings to be held as expeditiously as possible and, once examination of witnesses began, to continue from day to day until the witnesses in attendance had been examined, unless the court found an adjournment beyond the following day necessary for reasons recorded in writing.

The section also regulated adjournments at the request of parties, including restrictions on granting time merely because counsel was engaged elsewhere. The precise applicable text, statutory exceptions and any case-specific directions must be considered rather than treating all adjournments as automatically unlawful.

Supreme Court's observations and directions

The Bench observed that long breaks after examination-in-chief can expose witnesses to pressure, threats or inducements. It referred to earlier Supreme Court decisions, including State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh, (2001) 4 SCC 667, Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal, and Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, which stressed the need to follow the statutory schedule for recording evidence.

In concluding its judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated three important directions:

1. Compliance with Section 309 CrPC: Trial courts must observe the statutory mandate concerning continuous recording of evidence.
2. Prompt examination of eyewitnesses: The prosecution should produce eyewitnesses for examination as early as practicable.
3. Recording statements: The Court directed that eyewitness statements should invariably be recorded under Section 164 CrPC in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

The Supreme Court also stated that High Courts may issue appropriate directions to trial courts to secure compliance. The observations on Section 164 must be read in the context of the judgment and the applicable procedural law; they should not be mistaken for a rule that every criminal case is invalid without such a statement.

Outcome of the criminal appeals

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and did not disturb the concurrent findings of conviction. Its discussion of delay in recording evidence was a broader reminder to criminal courts about the administration of justice, witness protection and the risk of interference with testimony.

Current law: Section 346 BNSS and the 2024 transition

From 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced the CrPC as the principal procedural statute for criminal cases to which it applies. Section 346 BNSS, titled Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings, corresponds broadly to former Section 309 CrPC and continues to emphasize expeditious proceedings and day-to-day examination of witnesses, subject to its own text and statutory exceptions.

Section 346 also places restrictions on adjournments, including limits on adjournments sought by a party in the circumstances specified in the provision. Courts and litigants should refer to the exact current wording rather than assuming that every condition is identical to the former CrPC provision.

Section 183 BNSS concerns recording of confessions and statements by a Magistrate, broadly corresponding to former Section 164 CrPC. Section 531 BNSS contains repeal and savings provisions relevant to proceedings pending when the BNSS commenced. Therefore, the procedural law applicable to a particular trial depends on its dates and the savings rules.

Practical significance for trial courts and advocates

• Plan examination and cross-examination of witnesses with minimal avoidable gaps.
• Record specific reasons where an adjournment is legally justified.
• Give special attention to witnesses who may face intimidation, pressure or inducement.
• Ensure that requests for adjournment are assessed under the procedural statute applicable to the case.
• Preserve the accused's right to a fair opportunity of defence while preventing needless delay.

Official legislation and judgment

Read the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India Code), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (India Code), and consult the Supreme Court of India for judicial information. The original Supreme Court order dated 28 November 2017 is available below.

Read the Supreme Court order (PDF)

Frequently asked questions

Can a criminal court adjourn a trial after witnesses begin giving evidence?

Yes, but the court must comply with the statutory conditions and record reasons when an adjournment beyond the following day is necessary. Routine lengthy adjournments are discouraged.

What was Section 309 CrPC?

Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 governed postponement and adjournment of criminal proceedings and generally required day-to-day examination of witnesses once evidence began, subject to statutory exceptions.

Which law applies to criminal proceedings after 1 July 2024?

Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is the corresponding adjournment provision for proceedings governed by the BNSS. Transitional and savings provisions, including Section 531 BNSS, must be considered for pending cases.

Editorial note: This article reports a 2017 judgment and identifies subsequent statutory changes for context. Application to a specific case depends on the relevant law, procedural stage and judicial orders.